Am I wrong? (Page 3): That's nice, but really doesn't address the issue.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Leitz wrote:

I try to buy the best of each I can afford. What others do has no effect on my purchases.

That's nice, but really doesn't address the issue.

RRS Loc: Not sure

Zone-System-Grandpa wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not aware of anyone purchasing a top of the line camera following up by purchasing a cheap aftermarket lens. Most people whom I know that purchase top of the line cameras also purchase top of the line lenses for their top of the line camera.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Camera sensor technology is better today than 20 years ago and will continue to improve.

I have several lenses of various quality according to reviews. Using these lenses on my A500, A77m2, and A7Rm2 supports my premise. The premise being that photography today is more about the sensor than the lens.

A great lens is a benefit only if the sensor is capable of recording all that the lens is capable of.

The leading producer of camera sensors is Sony. Many camera companies get their sensors from Sony. These companies include Nikon, Pentax, iphones, and the Hubble telescope.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Budnjax wrote:

It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?

I always thought the photographer was the most important part.

As for your basic question, it's a tossup for many. Post editing programs can correct for many of the lessor lens or bodies. Ultimately it's your choice.

TGanner Loc: Haines, Alaska

When you buy the best the first time around, it only hurts once.

Nelson.I Loc: Monument, Colorado, USA

Budnjax wrote:

It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?

I bought a Canon 70D body and am very slowly buying EF (not EF-S) lenses. I figure, at worst I'll have a better lens than the sensor. At best I'll be better set should I decide to get a camera with a full frame sensor.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Budnjax wrote:

It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?

There is a balance for this. As stated above, buy what you can afford but I would put more emphasis on lens than body. Personally, I bought all my lenses used, and I purchased all lenses that were one generation old or just about to become one generation old. So all my lenses are Canon, they are all L series lenses, and they are all Mark I or first gen lenses. All of my lenses have been replaced by Mark II lenses except for my macro lens which is still a current model. I saved a lot of money and still got excellent glass. Is my glass as good as Mark II, probably not but I do feel it's better than any of the third party glass out there.

As far as bodies go, I just can't see spending $6k on a 1DX or 1DXII. But I own two bodies that are in my opinion as good as but are not quite built like a tank as the 1D series cameras are. I had a 1D Mark IV, but never really liked it. Something felt off about the 1.3x crop sensor and the focus system it has. So I sold that and got a 7D Mark II. I have not regretted that move at all.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Yes the Canon is better but is it $700 better. No its not. Only pixel peepers

RM, maybe not for you!
I would never(as of now) purchase a Tamron or a Sigma.
And I could care less about IQ.
Do you think the guys shooting the finish of the Olympic 100 meter dash use tammys and sigmas?
They don't, and it has nothing to do with IQ.
But many will never fully understand that!! ;-)
SS

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

U. R. so right ....some people go out and buy the best equip and best lenses.., best heads ..., best tripods and monos ..., thinking This will make them a master photographer ..., usually because they have the money to burn .., and then get blown away by a guy with a 7100 and DX lenses ... I know ..., I used to be one .....!!!!! I think I cooked through $20,000 before realising my brother and his 7100 with DX lenses were out shooting me .".

I sold my 800E ..., kept my good glass .. Bought a 7100 ..,, had my brother teach me a thing or 2 ..., THEN .., bought a D810 as a preorder ... And never looked back ...a lesson learned ...

I still carry the 7100 as a back up and as a reminder ....

SwedeUSA2

SharpShooter wrote:

...

They don't, and it has nothing to do with IQ.
But many will never fully understand that!! ;-)
SS

What is there to understand that you seem to imply you do?
Please enlighten us!

kd7eir Loc: Tucson, AZ

rmorrison1116 wrote:

The most important part is the person using the system.

THIS is the most useful answer I've read in this thread.

A bad photographer with the absolute best camera/lens combination is still a bad photographer. A good photographer with a mediocre camera/lens combination is still a good photographer.

If the HUMAN cannot utilize the tools properly, how much they spend on them, nor the specifications of the tools, make a damn bit of difference.

99% of people cannot tell a difference between a properly composed and shot image with a $400 lens and a properly composed and shot image with a $10,000 lens. It's the same idiocracy that makes people believe that a $500 digital cable is better than a $10 digital cable.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

chapjohn wrote:

Camera sensor technology is better today than 20 y... (show quote)

My Images from my 11 year old DSC-R1 are so pleasing that I find myself opting for the OLD sony over my 60d with great lenses; In your humble opinion is this primarily the performance of the Zeiss lens or the combo of the first C sensor on the cybershot in conjunction with the Carl Zeiss lens ? I agree that sensors seem to be driving the wagon, but if all Zeiss lens perform as well as this one I would consider looking at options.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Budnjax wrote:

It seems as though many camera buyers set out to buy a top of the line camera body and then buy cheap, aftermarket lenses for it. I've always thought that the lenses are the most important part of an outfit and (if buying on a budget) would opt for the best lenses and a less-expensive camera body. Anybody agree? Disagree?

I completely agree.

The lens is the most important part of the rig. The glass is ultimately what really determines how your images will look.

The camera body, which most people obsess over far more than the lenses they attach to it, really is more about conveniences than capabilities. Most cameras today are pretty equal in their most basic capabilities... it's all the little "tweaks and features" where they differ, many of which a lot of folks might never use.

BebuLamar

TGanner wrote:

When you buy the best the first time around, it only hurts once.

I agree with you on this one but when I buy cheap lenses I don't buy better ones later to replace them.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

SharpShooter wrote:

RM, maybe not for you!
I would never(as of now) purchase a Tamron or a Sigma.
And I could care less about IQ.
Do you think the guys shooting the finish of the Olympic 100 meter dash use tammys and sigmas?
They don't, and it has nothing to do with IQ.
But many will never fully understand that!! ;-)
SS

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: